Handling Cheating

[Sunseeker]

That is not cheating, its breaking a verbal contract granted but YOU ARE NOT CHEATING AT DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, which btw was the clear point of this topic. If I agreed something like that with my players, which in some games I have, I still might do it if I felt it was to the benefit of the game. Its my job as the DM to keep the game flowing and ensure everyone has a good time, I would clearly try and avoid it as im a bit a of purist when it comes to dice rolls my self but at the end of the day you can call it rude, wrong and even braking a promise but the situation you all describe is not CHEATING AT DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS OR ANY ROLE PLAYING GAME.

Woah. Chill bro. I was under the assumption that this was a topic for sharing opinions on the subject. I feel its possible for a DM to cheat, that is my opinion, if you don't like it, yelling at me isn't going to change my mind.

 

[Sunseeker]

That may be the way it is at your table but not necessarily the way it is at another table.

What you're arguing is play style, though. The GM still cannot cheat. But he can run a game that nobody likes.

For example, if everybody agrees that dice throws should be rolled out into the open, and the GM does this but uses some phantom modifiers on a particular roll, for whatever reason (hopefully, to help the party!), the GM is not cheating. But, he is playing in a way that he knows his players don't like--and the GM is in charge of keeping the "fun".

The GM's not cheating, but he's failing at making the game "fun" when his players don't like his play style.

GM rolls a 19, says he hits a 27, well that 8 isn't much of a phantom. What you are describing is not what I was getting at. Yes, different tables are different, that is entierly part of my point. There is no universal truth here, it downtime matter if the DM really can or cannot cheat. If a player feels cheated of their expected play experience, then a player feels cheated, I don't understand why you guys think this isn't a subjective issue. In some games and to some players, the DM can do things which would be considered "cheating". In other games, the DM may have absolute godhood and be incapable of cheating. The "soft rules" at the table are just as important as the hard rules in the book. If the table considers the violation of either by anyone cheating, then the DM cheated. This isn't an argument over scientific fact, its a matter of opinion.

 

[The Red King]

Woah. Chill bro. I was under the assumption that this was a topic for sharing opinions on the subject. I feel its possible for a DM to cheat, that is my opinion, if you don't like it, yelling at me isn't going to change my mind.

WHAT ABOUT TYPING IN ALL CAPS???

Did that make you change your mind?

 

[terrya]

The idea that caps lock is shouting over the internet is not one im good at remembering. I am mearly trying to draw attention to the point that people seem to be ignoring, i will use bold text in future apologies if you took offence. Its not a subjective issue because we were discussing whether a DM can cheat at the game, Which he can't. The simple version of this is that by the letter of the law the DM, acording to the rule book its self, can not cheat. You can argue to the cows come home that in some way he's cheating his players out of a desired experiance but that is not the same as a player fudging his dice rolls. Theres fact and then theres opinions, your giving an opinion and unless you can show me otherwise your wrong

 

[Sunseeker]

The idea that caps lock is shouting over the internet is not one im good at remembering. I am mearly trying to draw attention to the point that people seem to be ignoring, i will use bold text in future apologies if you took offence. Its not a subjective issue because we were discussing whether a DM can cheat at the game, Which he can't. The simple version of this is that by the letter of the law the DM, acording to the rule book its self, can not cheat. You can argue to the cows come home that in some way he's cheating his players out of a desired experiance but that is not the same as a player fudging his dice rolls. Theres fact and then theres opinions, your giving an opinion and unless you can show me otherwise your wrong

Show of hands, how many people play the game by RAW? Attempting to separate the rules in the book from the rules of ettiquite at the table is creating a false dichotomy. The mythical situation examples by the idea that some table is playing by exactly how the book says to play is just silly. The people who play "by the book" if this forum is any example are few, they are the exception, not the rule.

And by the very definition of an opinion, it can't ne "wrong" since ya know, its an opinion. Sitting there telling me my opinion on what i consider a subjective issue is wrong ain't gonna get you very far.

 

[terrya]

Its not subjective whether a DM can cheat or not. He Can't. Your arguing whether in certain situations its morally right but using the word cheating instead. Thats why your wrong because what your describing is not a question of cheating someone your just trying to make it that way for the sake of arguing your point and ignoring the fact your wrong.

 

[The Red King]

Its not subjective whether a DM can cheat or not. He Can't. Your arguing whether in certain situations its morally right but using the word cheating instead. Thats why your wrong because what your describing is not a question of cheating someone your just trying to make it that way for the sake of arguing your point and ignoring the fact your wrong.

People who tell other people that they are "wrong", and refuse to see how another person could see it from another perspective scare me. They usually capitalize the word "truth", and believe themselves unable to be incorect on any topic.

 

[fenriswolf456]

Show of hands, how many people play the game by RAW? Attempting to separate the rules in the book from the rules of ettiquite at the table is creating a false dichotomy. The mythical situation examples by the idea that some table is playing by exactly how the book says to play is just silly. The people who play "by the book" if this forum is any example are few, they are the exception, not the rule.

And by the very definition of an opinion, it can't ne "wrong" since ya know, its an opinion. Sitting there telling me my opinion on what i consider a subjective issue is wrong ain't gonna get you very far.

True, but in order to 'cheat', you have to be manipulating or breaking some rule. In order to judge if someone is cheating at a game, you have to go by the RAW, because that's the only metric we have. Once we get into modified rules and house rules, we're imposing a second set of rules onto the play experience.

By the rules of the game, the DM is allowed to do anything, including altering or outright ignoring dice rolls (which I just read in the Rules Compendium while prepping myself for my first go at DMing a 4E campaign). They also have total control over the world, adventure, and encounters, right down to deciding what the monsters/npcs do. Therefore, in this way, the "DMs can't cheat" camp is correct.

But as you said, there are other sets in rules in place beyond the actual game itself. And it's these rules that may be broken by the DM, and would be considered cheating, which is where the "DMs can cheat" camp is arguing from. If the DM agreed to a 'let the dice lay where they lie' kind of game, and then goes changing the outcomes despite what the dice indicate, then they are cheating the other players out of their expected play experience by breaking the social contract, not the rules of the game.

So everyone here has been right, depending on context.

 

[mudbunny]

Its not subjective whether a DM can cheat or not. He Can't. Your arguing whether in certain situations its morally right but using the word cheating instead. Thats why your wrong because what your describing is not a question of cheating someone your just trying to make it that way for the sake of arguing your point and ignoring the fact your wrong.

The DM can cheat all the time. However, as mentioned above, D&D is a game where, under certain circumstances, the DM is encouraged to cheat by breaking the rules (fudge a roll, fudge HP, etc) in order to avoid a negative result or to make the game more fun.

I think that the problem here is that, in pretty much every other style of game, cheating by breaking the rules has a negative stigma attached to it. In D&D, it very much depends on the group around the table. For some groups, the DM fudging the dice roll in order to not kill the entire party would be perfectly acceptable. In others, the social contract around the table is "what the dice rolls is what the dice rolls" and a DM fudging the roll to not give a TPK would be seen as a horrific violation of the social contract.

In other words, A DM can always cheat, but it isn't always cheating.

 

[fanboy2000]

If the rules say that the DM can break the rules, can the DM break the rule about breaking the rules by agreeing not to break the rules? Or is the rule granting the DM the power to break rules the one rule the DM cannot break?